Justin Amash

WATCH: At Town Hall, Justin Amash Explains Impeachment Tweets, Gets Asked About Possible Libertarian Presidential Run

If you had never heard of Amash before, it was a perfect introduction to his views on just about every significant issue. If you are familiar with him, it was a standout performance.

|

In Washington, D.C., he's been labeled "loser," accused of being a secret Democrat, and ostracized from the legislative caucus he co-founded, but on Monday night Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) found himself in friendlier territory—and embraced the opportunity.

At a town hall in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Amash's constituents gave him applause and praise—but also fired pointed questions from left, right, and center political perspectives—during a nearly two-hour meeting marking the congressman's first public appearance since tweeting that he believed President Donald Trump had engaged in "impeachable conduct." It was the sort of spectacle that's all too rare in politics today; a (mostly) respectful, detailed discussion of policy, politics, and the balance of power in the federal government.

If you had never heard of Amash before, it was a perfect introduction to his views on just about every significant issue. If you are familiar with him, it was a standout performance.

Watch here:

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash is holding a town hall meeting now in Grand Rapids. It's his first town hall meeting since he tweeted that the president should be impeached for his actions during the Russia investigation: https://www.woodtv.com/2033569753

Posted by WOOD TV8 on Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Elaborating on what he's already outlined in a series of Twitter threads, Amash said his reading of the second volume of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's report shows "all of the elements of obstruction of justice." He voiced agreement with Mueller's decision to stick with longstanding Justice Department precedent forbidding the indictment of a sitting president, but said it was Congress' responsibility to respond to executive misconduct.

"I'm confident that if you read Volume 2 [of the Mueller report], you will be appalled by much of the conduct. And I was appalled," Amash said. "We cannot allow conduct like that go unchecked. Congress has a duty to keep the president in check."

Specifically, Amash pointed to an incident in the Mueller report where Trump instructed Don McGahn, then-White House counsel, to put out a false statement declaring that Trump had never attempted to interfere with the investigation—something that Trump repeatedly attempted to do, according to Mueller's report, only to be thwarted by the fact that his aides disobeyed direct orders.

"Things like that reflect incredible dishonesty," said Amash. "I don't think you can just let that stuff go."

Mostly, though, Amash tried to steer away from the i-word and towards the need for structural reform in Washington—including his old bugaboo about House leaders of both parties limiting the number of amendments that can be offered on the floor—and bemoaned the ways that partisanship has poisoned the well for reasonable debate in politics.

"Liberty cannot survive in a system where people hate each other, and there is no virtue," Amash said, to loud applause, near the end of the event. "If you care about limited government, then you should be worried about people being so angry at each other."

A rare note of that anger, on Monday, came from a woman sporting a red "Make America Great Again" hat, who accused the congressman of drinking "the same Kool-Aid as all of the Democrats" and repeated the oft-debunked claim that someone cannot have committed obstruction of justice without also having committed an underlying crime. Another woman, who claimed to have volunteered for Amash's first congressional campaign, accused him of "grandstanding" to boost his political profile.

While much of the town hall was obviously focused on Trump and Amash's recent tweets about the Mueller report, one of the more surprising aspects of the event was the extent to which other policy issues managed to penetrate that bubble. The five-term congressman faced direct questions about his stance on immigration policy, infrastructure, election reform, surveillance, opioids, and health care policy.

But it all comes back to the horse race eventually. Asked directly whether his public break with the rest of the Republican Party is a prelude to a potential run for president—possibly as a member of the Libertarian Party—Amash refused to rule out such a move, but also denied that the two ideas were linked.

"If I were trying to roll out something like that, this is not how I would do it," he said.

Is he worried, another attendee asked, about facing a Republican primary challenge due to his willingness to reject the GOP party line on Trump's behavior?

Check the scoreboard, he suggested.

"The president did not do well here. I did significantly better than he did [in 2016]," Amash said. "And in any case, you should always do what is right."

In other words: Bring it on.

NEXT: If You Think Having Too Many Choices Is Tyranny, Wait Until You Have Too Few

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He’s going to have to get a few more people to hate him before he can go for the Libertarian nomination.

    1. Amash cannot call himself any kind of Libertarian if he supports a Mueller-style investigation of anyone.

      1. The fuck he can’t. What the hell is wrong with you, defending a sitting President? For a libertarian, that should be a very rare thing, reserved for such actions as bringing home troops or pardoning non-violent prisoners.

        1. Yes because political witch hunts based upon a false premise that wasn’t even technically illegal is totes libertarian.

        2. We should investigate presidents for things they do not who they are. The fact tha Mueller was investigating Russian collusion and failed to write one sentence about Hillary commissioning a foreigner to use his Russian sources to smear Trump is very telling. He spent pages on the Trump tower meeting between Don Jr. and what’s her name the Russian lawyer. If Don jr. opened the meeting by offering a million to her to make up shit about Hillary and peddle it to anyone that listened it would have been exactly what the Fusion GPS/Hillary-DNC/Steele cabal did.

          I was enthusiastic about Trump because I knew if he stepped out of line he’d get impeached in an instant, as opposed to Hillary who could piss on the constitution and get nothing but accolades. (That’s probably why we shouldn’t have elderly woman presidents, that’s a bad image even for Trump trying to direct his elderly trickle on the constitution, but Hillary doffing her depends and falling as she tries to squat over the constitution is much worse. Maybe AOC for president isn’t as bad an idea as it seems if we really do want someone to piss all over the constitution.)

          1. Mueller was the bag-man on the Clinton’s Uranium One caper. No chance of him coming within a mile of investigating the Clintons.

            1. You are all so fucking stupid.

              1. Amash is co-owner of MIT, a tool company that owns Tekton, which illegally repackages chinese products claiming they were made in the US. That is why he is attacking trump. He is a criminal, not your hero. Anyone who supports him is clueless.

                1. If he were so unscrupulous, why would he endanger his reelection chances by calling for Trump’s impeachment?

                  Are you really thinking this through, or are you making excuses for the fat orange fucktard?

                  1. Because he wasn’t going to get re-elected.

                  2. why don’t you look into it yourself, moron

        3. You’re right, it’s much more libertarian to defend the Deep State trying to overthrow a President.

        4. Because a deep state coup attempt based on knowingly falsified reports by open political operatives is a totally legal and legitimate thing for libertarians to support, right Chipper?
          Oh no, wait it isn’t. Fuck off, Chipper.

          Anyway:
          Boehm – “Specifically, Amash pointed to an incident in the Mueller report where Trump instructed Dan McGahn, then-White House counsel, to put out a false statement declaring that Trump had never attempted to interfere with the investigation—something that Trump repeatedly attempted to do, according to Mueller’s report.”

          It’s ‘Don’ not ‘Dan’ McGahn, Mr. Boehm, but let’s see what Muellers report actually says:
          Overview
          In late January 2018, the media reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel fired based on purported conflicts of interest but McGahn had refused, saying he would quit instead…

          Evidence
          I. The Press Reports that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel

          On January 25, 2018, the New York Times reported that in June 2017, the President had ordered McGahn to have the Department of Justice fire the Special Counsel.777…

          The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not “look good” and McGahn needed to correct it.811 McGahn recalled the President said, “I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ‘fire.’ This story doesn’t look good. You need to correct this. You’re the White House counsel.”812…”

          1. Analysis
            In analyzing the President’ s efforts to have McGahn deny that he had been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:
            a. Obstructive act.
            The President’s repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said. There is some evidence that at the time the New York Times and Washington Post stories were published in late January 2018, the President believed the stories were wrong and that he had never told McGahn to have Rosenstein remove the Special Counsel. The President correctly understood that McGahn had not told the President directly that he planned to resign. Tn addition, the President told Priebus and Porter that he had not sought to terminate the Special Counsel, and in the Oval Office meeting with McGahn, the President said, “I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ‘fire.”‘ That evidence could indicate that the President was not attempting to persuade McGahn to change his story but was instead offering his own-but different-recollection of the substance of his June 2017 conversations with McGahn and McGahn’s reaction to them.

            Anyway, the point is you guys really need to read this yourselves to see that Boehm and Amash are incredibly dishonest fuckers here when it comes to the Mueller Report.
            The relevant sections are pages 113 to 120. Read them please.

            1. Wow.

            2. Thanks for posting that.

            3. +100

            4. Funny how Trump critics always say we aren’t reading the report and then someone actually quotes it and you hear chirping from the obstruct/impeach harpies.

            5. The McGahn case reminds me somewhat of Comey going around telling people confidentially that Trump wasn’t the target of an investigation, and then refusing a lawful order to end the rumors by saying it publicly.

              It seems that the early Trump administration had a number of individuals in it who were actively trying to construct a case against Trump. Personally, if I’d been in Trump’s position, I’d have been wearing a wire myself, just so that I could prove what had been said on various occasions. “James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations” certainly kept Comey’s testimony on the straight and narrow.

            6. You should read it too. The very next paragraph says:

              Other evidence cuts against that understanding of the President’s conduct. As previously described, see Volume IT, Section ILE, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn’s account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President’s directive; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice, and should be raised with the President’s personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn. In addition, the President’s subsequent denials that he had told McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed were carefully worded. When first asked about the New York Times story, the President said, “Fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story.” And when the President spoke with McGahn in the Oval Office, he focused on whether he had used the word “fire,” saying, “I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ‘fire”‘ and “Did I say the word ‘fire’?” The President’s assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed thus runs counter to the evidence.

              A bit later, under “Intent”

              Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of
              influencing McGahn ‘s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President’s conduct towards the investigation.

            7. Thanks, Fancyclad for providing actual facts.

              Yes, it’s amazing when the truth is actually revealed by the original facts rather than simply believing the disinformation from partisan ideologues.

              If only more individuals would learn the actual facts about the fallacious theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming rather than simply accepting the mendacious disinformation of the Al Gores, Michael Manns, and James Hansens of the world.

        5. Or having the full power of the police state complete with total surveillance of their political campaign, spies placed in their political campaign, and an attempt to not only overthrow their presidency, but also destroy their entire family.

          Fuck off, you sniveling brownshirt weasel.

        6. It’s obvious a cunt like you wouldn’t understand Libertarianism if it came up and slapped you in the face. Be a good boy and go sit in the corner while the adults talk.

      2. Because the essence of libertarian is unchecked and unaccountable executive power

        1. Undying support of a lying, philandering, hypocritical, criminal, obstructionist sociopath is the essence of libertarianism partisan Republicanism.

          1. Is that your excuse for supporting Obama in between surfing kiddie porn, shrieky-poo?

          2. Why are you still hiding behind “Blowhard Woodchip” Shreek? You posted the kiddie porn links and got banned for it, take your medicine.

        2. Trump has been checked often. What are you hallucinating about? Courts and Congress have both checked him. That doesnt justify a political prosecution against him no matter how much you dislike him.

        3. Really a libertarian should have issues with both sides. But i see far bigger problems with an administration giving a former employee (Clinton) sway over doj officials and using cooked up evidence supported only by anonymous **cough steele cough** “leaks” of the original fabricated evidence to spy on an opposing political campaign. Yes steele leaked parts of the dossier to the nyt and the doj then used these anonymously sourced nyt article to corroborate said dossier… And remember this all centered on the idea carter page was some mastermind fixer of a vast Russian conspiracy. Of which 0 evidence was ever provided, anywhere. And then the head of the fbi leaks his own records to manipulate congress into thinking its all legit and should be investigated for reasons we still don’t fully understand. Even though comeys has goofed his timelines and seemed to implicate the FBI knew where the dossier came from but withheld that from the fisa court.

      3. The real crime was the investigation based on known false information bought and paid for by a political campaign. Carter Page had his rights violated by a warrant based on partisan hot air.

      4. Exactly correct Kevin.

        Particularly when the underlying “crime” is based upon government-sanctioned partisan disinformation and the investigative team consists of totally biased partisan hacks who despise the subject of the investigation.

        This is as unconstitutional and the epitome of government duplicity and overreach as it gets. Libertarians do not support coups.

  2. If he truly believes this balderdash, why isn’t he bringing the impeachment charges himself? Oh, that’s right, because like his fellow Democrats – deeds dictate labels, kids – he wants all the fawning praise being a shrill ORANGE MAN BAD! hysteric delivers from the Democrat-Media Complex and Losertarian America-lasters like “Reason” which has as much to do with the word as the ACLU does with civil liberties these days.

    Nut up or shut up! If you think Bad Orange Man is a treasonous criminal, BRING THE IMPEACHMENT NOW!!! Otherwise, stuff it, you poseurs.

    1. You know who else had a townhall? Burgermeister Meisterburger, that’s who!

      1. I hate toys! And toys hate me!

    2. “why isn’t he bringing the impeachment charges himself”

      Moral preening does ring hollow when you refuse walk the walk as well.

      “He really should be impeached, but hey, not by me!”

      So brave.

  3. ” it was a standout performance.”

    Agreed, he stood out as incredibly amateurish and stricken by TDS. He barely made sense and his evidence stood out as particularly weak.

    All in all, he stood out as a embarrassment.

    1. Amash – “He didn’t let himself get caught in our obvious perjury trap! Fuck the 5th amendment, THAT’S OBSTRUCTION!!! ”

      Lolololo and he wonders why his rep is all talk.

      1. We’ve reached a tipping point. The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.

        And you’re clearly not handling it well.

          1. Tulpa, OBL, and now Sevo. Looks like it’s a regular ole lemon party up in here.

            1. You would know.

        1. Omg you’re so fucking boring

    2. Just how terrible and criminal would a Republican president have to be for you to decide not to lick his taint at every opportunity?

      Where are the fucking libertarians?? Is there another website or what?

      1. They’d have to commit a crime at a minimum.

        1. He did commit a bunch of fucking crimes.

          If you needed a visual aid, watch Mueller’s press conference today.

          1. Just how terrible and criminal would a Democrat president have to be for you to decide not to lick his taint at every opportunity?

            Is droning American citizens not enough? Or ordering our intelligence apparatus to spy on the opposing political faction not enough? I could go on for days.

            The truth is, Trump is LESS dirty than pretty much any major politician this country has seen in many decades… But his policies are ZOMG not globalist, leftist, anti-American policies, so he must be destroyed. That is literally all this boils down to. The Uniparty can’t stand for somebody who isn’t down for the cause and is trying to punish him for “crimes” 1/100th as bad as every other recent sitting president has committed.

  4. While it is understandable Amash would get all butt-hurt over Jerusalem, calling for impeachment is a little extreme.

    1. Has Amash actually called for impeachment? — No, he has filed no such bill.

      There’s a difference between saying Trump has committed impeachable offenses and actually wanting to impeach him. Every President, probably every other politician has committed impeachable offenses.

      Trumpistas like to say “pay attention to what Trump does, not what he says.” Funny they won’t that to anybody else. Trump is special.

      1. Show me where amash called put other presidents. I will wait.

        1. That’s a major complaint of mine; You could have made a serious case for impeaching every President in my lifetime; Reagan had Iran-Contra, for instance. Maybe not Carter, he was just feckless.

          But did Amash ever call for Obama’s impeachment? Not that I recall.

          It’s not principle driving this, or else he would have called for Obama’s impeachment.

          1. Yep. They’ve all been factually worse than Trump… But Trump isn’t a globalist shill, who is all in on destroying America, so they’re trying to railroad him.

        2. Whether Amash or anyone called out other presidents for bad behavior has nothing to do with whether Trump committed impeachable acts.

      2. “There’s a difference between saying Trump has committed impeachable offenses and actually wanting to impeach him. ”

        Yes there is, he would have to not be a craven fuck to actually send up a bill. You’re right, he has exactly no balls, and is just shooting off his dicksucker.

        1. If Amash feels confident that Trump will not be impeached even if he calls for impeachment, then no, he does not have a responsibility to send up a bill calling for impeachment. It would be a waste of time. His current objective may simply be to correct mischaracterization of the report by Barr.

      3. “There’s a difference between saying Trump has committed impeachable offenses and actually wanting to impeach him”

        The difference is called integrity.

        If Trump has committed impeachable offenses, it’s Mr. Moral Preening’s *duty* to work toward his impeachment.

      4. Yes, throwing out that the president has committed impeachable offenses and then taking no further action on impeachment is worse then accepting that the case is weak and letting it lie saying nothing.

  5. The most powerful man in the world is so impotent, he “repeatedly attempted” to obstruct an investigation unsuccessfully. Seems like he could have really buckled down and obstructed it a little, just enough to keep McGann and other subordinates from testifying, or actually fired Mueller himself (which wouldn’t actually be obstruction) Apprentice-style

    1. Right? I mean, if Trump were some person being investigated for actual suspicion of an actual crime, even one he knew that he was innocent of, then I could concede the point. But, Mueller knew within three months of being appointed that there was no “collusion” with Russia, yet he continued his investigation for years after that. A President faced with an obvious attempt at entrapment by political foes has every right, and even duty, to not cooperate, and even stymie, an overt act of lawfare, espicially by agencies directly under his control!
      His first mistake was to not simply end the investigation of himself by his subordinates, and force Congress to investigate or not. And now, some 3 years later, after wasting so much money, man hours, and national angst, we’re at the exact same place: it’s Congress’s job to investigate the President, not any executive agency.

      1. More money spent on Benghazi. Twenty-something indictments compared to zero.

        Maybe you morons can’t tell the difference between a fake and a real investigation because you trust everything Republicans and their media poodles say.

        Try not being morons.

        1. Maybe you don’t understand that, since the executive branch controls indictments, properly corrupt administrations never get indicted. Only administrations that AREN’T obstructing justice have to worry on that score.

          The Obama administration wasn’t spared indictments due to being clean, but instead due to having corrupted the DOJ to the point where criminal referrals went nowhere. And the IG system was being subverted, too:

          See, for instance, this letter from the IGs to Congress.

      2. His first mistake was not conducting mass firings from the podium at his inauguration.

        1. exactly. hopes were for a Saddam-ing.

        2. ^100% this

  6. Is ENB going to get jealous with Boehm for writing about Amash? Writing about people who sell themselves is her gig after all…

    1. I’m still waiting for reason to discuss the declassification order from last Thursday. They are trying to find a way to call it obstruction to declassify somehow… waiting for that one.

      1. Reason – ” Trump is just trying to distract the public from what’s really happening by declassifying those documents!!! “

      2. No, that’s the cover up. Duh. I always cover via exposure – doesn’t everyone?

  7. If he runs on the Libertarian Party ticket I will vote for him. If he runs as a Republican or Democrat, forget it.

    1. So it’s not his ideas you care about is what you’re saying?

    2. There is a difference between a self-hating Republican and a libertarian. The party affiliation is only part of it.

  8. Is the LP going to be like a political Goodwill, where you donate used Republican politicians?

    1. Gold, Eddy, pure gold!

    2. Pretty much political hand me downs at this point.

    3. Well, the truth of it is 95% of libertarian leaning politicians and voters all tend to be Republicans or vote for them frequently… Because as much as Reason tries to deny it, the Republicans are far more in line with libertarian thinking than the Dems are… And frankly on some issues more than the Libertarian Party is now. Not that Rs are perfect, but any serious politician who wants to get elected who has libertarian leanings is wise to do it as a Republican.

      So if the LP is lucky they will be getting used Republicans, because it’s mostly either that or non serious tools with little hope of ever achieving anything and zero name recognition.

  9. I’m always skeptical when someone describes a Republican elected official as Liberatarian. But in this case it seems justified, equal parts principalled positions on policy to reduce the size and scope of government, mixed with healthy doses of sheer lunacy.

    The Liberatarian Platform in a nutshell.

    1. Or a nutsack.

  10. We need Amash in the house where at least he is one of the few voices left to tell them to stop fucking spending.

  11. “Asked directly whether his public break with the rest of the Republican Party is a prelude to a potential run for president—possibly as a member of the Libertarian Party—Amash refused to rule out such a move, but also denied that the two ideas were linked.
    “If I were trying to roll out something like that, this is not how I would do it,” he said.”

    Or course he said that. The question is: Why did you print it?

  12. If you are familiar with him, it was a standout performance.

    Is this supposed to mean that he usually sucks when he gives a speech?

    1. LOL

  13. I’m still waiting for the article on UFOs.
    They’re real and when the little creatures take over the world, will they be benevolent?
    ========

    Four years after UFO sightings, and just in time for documentary, Navy updates reporting guidelines for pilots

    https://news.yahoo.com/navy-ufos-reporting-guidelines-updated-202515828.html;_ylt=AwrJ61Q1.O1c9PkAvldXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–

    1. But is there a clandestine agency battling them with hit female technicians unaccountably wearing purple wigs?

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tgpxsi19DEQ

      1. If it does not I want no part in it.

    2. Oh those UFOs. Well of course they are real.

      The government knows. Look just today Elon Musk began constructing Skynet, um Starlink.

      https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites-wont-ruin-night-sky-elon-musk.html

      When completed the system will have a network of 12,000 satellites covering the whole globe, for the purpose of internet or something, sure.

      That will integrate with the space force Trump has talked about allowing us to counter any unwanted probing.

      Look out you alien bastards!

    3. Of course they’re real – anyone driving a semi at 2:00 in the morning listening to Art Bell in the late 1990s could have told you that. My favorite is the recently released Navy video of a volleyball skimming the ocean going close to the speed of sound. It is odd they are releasing this stuff – my guess is it’s some misinformation campaign for the military, or they’re about to ask for a shit ton more money.

      1. Few of the younger folks remember him.

        I was working a lot of long midnight shifts back when Art Bell was doing the show. Was a near hour ride home so that is what I listened to on the way. Kept me awake and got me back.

        Radio entertainment was an art then and he was very good at it.

        1. The best – I worked the 4pm-4am shift delivering pizzas in a Midwest college town, and I listed to Art all night. I love how they just play reruns now of Art – better than George Nory

        2. I liked Art Bell… But I kind of prefer George Nory by a small margin. I think Art was a genuinely crazier dude, and in many ways the types of guests George has on, and the way he handles stuff is a little less zany.

          Some shows can be really fun… But the ones that are too crazy are a little much for me.

    4. Sure they’re benevolent. They just want to serve man.

  14. I’m real glad we figured out that, yes, Trump could have obstructed justice, even if the underlying crime being investigated is a complete fever dream cooked up by partisans with pee fetishes.

    Just go ahead and say that 100 times. It really makes the case for impeachment.

  15. Asked directly whether his public break with the rest of the Republican Party is a prelude to a potential run for president—possibly as a member of the Libertarian Party—Amash refused to rule out such a move
    Golly, you don’t say…
    Pretty sure this is the main reason why Reason’s written 50,000 Amash hagiographies in the last week.

  16. The attempted coup, which the USA is still in the midst of, casts so much shade, I cannot see any of the trivial bullshit of which Amash speaks.

  17. The video’s broken. It won’t play without me allowing Zuckerberg to spy on me.

    -jcr

  18. “Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by President Obama and Crooked Hillary,” Trump tweeted. “A total disgrace!”

    Donald Trump slammed Obama for using Air Force One for election campaigning. Now he does the same

    Sad, hypocritical POO*
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/29/donald-trumps-use-air-force-one-mixes-business-and-campaigning/3405405002/

    *President Orange Obstruction

    1. So you’re saying it’s okay to do this since your favorite President did it, shrieky-poo?

  19. Saw clips of the town meeting and was impressed with response to questions on the Mueller report. Also saw him talked about controlling spending. From what I saw a very good performance. What impressed me most of all was his willingness to be questioned by his constituents. Don’t know many Republicans willing to stand before the voters and answer questions. Certainly does not happen in Wisconsin.

    1. I have spoken with my Georgia State Senator for 20 mins one time.

      Like most people, politicians don’t like to look bad or stupid. They prefer to control the forum. Amash should get some credit for being quick to the answers to the public’s questions. He also has a good record in Congress to limit government.

      With that being said, reason is all on Amash’s jock which raises huge red flags. reason’s staff tend to have horrible judge in character and are not Libertarian.

      Just look at how many articles are posted here discussing all the Libertarian candidates each election cycle… Libertarian centric issues… what Libertarian politicians are up to.

  20. Everyone still shitting on one of their only allies in Congress because he dared to challenge the supreme authority of the senile orange fatass who just put a tax on all your food?

    Good, wouldn’t want to be shocked this morning.

    1. Not shocking you’re not intelligence enough to process the arguments against Amashs stance.

      1. Yum yum Trump balls git me some?

    2. As I’ve said about Amash a million times: If everybody in congress were like him, we’d be a in a far better place… But he’s still a delusional retard about many issues that left-libertarians have hard ons for, and has a severe case of TDS.

      He was a lot less unhinged before Trump came along honestly. Now he feels like he has to go out of his way to virtue signal stupid shit, against his own political interests, because he’s such a cuck he’s worried what the progs and Cosmotarians will think.

  21. Well, he is grandstanding. Why, I don’t know. It seems politically foolish to be doing what he’s doing, but maybe there’s something going on that makes it politically necessary.

  22. […] about every significant issue. If you are familiar with him, it was a standout performance,” writes Reason‘s Eric Boehm. Watch […]

  23. dear (R) stop leaving your eggshells in our basket. ~~(L)

  24. > “And in any case, you should always do what is right.”

    Gosh, he truly is not a Republican at all, is he?

  25. […] about every significant issue. If you are familiar with him, it was a standout performance,” writes Reason‘s Eric Boehm. Watch […]

  26. […] his electric town hall last night in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the libertarian Republican congressman is having a bit of a bipartisan […]

  27. “who accused the congressman of drinking “the same Kool-Aid as all of the Democrats” and repeated the oft-debunked claim that someone cannot have committed obstruction of justice without also having committed an underlying crime.”

    When the so-called “underlying crime” is based upon lies and government partisan disinformation, then, as a libertarian, I would ardently support dismissing any accusation of obstruction. Such accusation would not only be frivolous and completely illegitimate, it would be an attack on the Constitution. Any attempt to legitimize it would also be an attack on the Constitution.

  28. […] his electric town hall last night in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the libertarian Republican congressman is having a bit of a bipartisan […]

  29. When people are trying to destroy everything good about your civilization, it’s perfectly rational to get angry you cuck! Should people have not been angry at Lenin or Hitler or Mao? Perhaps if people had rightly got MORE angry at FDR America might be a vastly more free and prosperous nation today. Anger and hatred have a proper place in the world when directed at the right people.

    I hate spineless cowards like Amash. He would have bern preaching to remain bootlickers to the British while his betters knew the time to step things up had come.

  30. […] At Amash’s town hall on Monday, one upset woman identified herself as a former Amash volunteer, claimed to have voted for him in every election since 2010, and said she’d recently changed her position on him. She was obviously very upset at Amash for his position on impeaching Trump. After expressing her anger for a few minutes, she asked him, “Why did you say nothing about the FISA abuses? If you care about the constitution so much, why didn’t you say anything about the yearlong violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of Trump and his entire transition team?” This apparently prompted Amash to laugh off-camera, and that made her even angrier, because she took it to mean that he doesn’t care about the issue. She then insisted that he “didn’t speak about it once.” […]

  31. […] At Amash’s town hall on Monday, one upset woman identified herself as a former Amash volunteer, claimed to have voted for him in every election since 2010, and said she’d recently changed her position on him. She was obviously very upset at Amash for his position on impeaching Trump. After expressing her anger for a few minutes, she asked him, “Why did you say nothing about the FISA abuses? If you care about the constitution so much, why didn’t you say anything about the yearlong violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of Trump and his entire transition team?” This apparently prompted Amash to laugh off-camera, and that made her even angrier, because she took it to mean that he doesn’t care about the issue. She then insisted that he “didn’t speak about it once.” […]

  32. Yes its great article check out some Dubai Startups News

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.